Quote from: Poker Player on July 19, 2022, 10:11:56 AM

Quote from: n0nce on July 18, 2022, 01:59:34 PM

Let's assume your statement regarding Bitcoin price was valid; what does it matter?
If it is higher or lower, in the end what ultimately counts in my opinion, is if Bitcoin is good money. This can be achieved at a price of $100,000 or $1,000 per coin; doesn't matter since we have enough decimal places.

It does matter.
An invention that in theory is very good, because it is decentralized, autonomous and limited in its production, for it to be really good it lacks that people believe in it and that is reflected in the price.
If the price of Bitcoin were $0.01 today, after 13 years, it would still be a good invention in theory but bad in practice. And this forum would be long dead, for example.

Why would it be 'bad in practice', though? I guess a lower price would be correlated with lower market capitalization, which may be the result of less people buying Bitcoin (to then potentially use it). But I'm not sure how a lower price would directly make Bitcoin less usable or a higher price make it more usable. Ultimately, when it comes to the utility / usability of Bitcoin, I'd say centralized exchanges may do more harm than good for various reasons. To summarize, their whole business concept relies on people not withdrawing and holding and / or using their coins as intended, but leaving them on the platform. It manifests itself in exaggerated withdrawal fees and advertisements that are purely based on the 'story' that cryptocurrencies are primarily an investment asset.

Quote from: dkbit98 on July 19, 2022, 06:52:47 PM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on July 19, 2022, 10:59:50 AM

Their legal documents for Version 2 already state that zkSNACKs is based in Seychelles and has done for over a month already. If they are already based there, and the whole point of their move was to avoid blacklisting, then why are they still talking about blacklisting and not reversing their position?

They are not openly talking about blacklisting anymore, but there is certainly a big reaction from other people about initial news, and bitcointalk forum is included.
I don't know what's the real truth behind this story but let's give them benefit of the doubt, until (or if) we see moving into wrong direction.

I appreciate your more neutral position; and in general it's always welcome for me to have a healthy discussion instead of just an angry mob of people that all share one opinion. Wink

For me personally, the 'wrong direction' was chosen the moment they decided to even consider blacklisting as a viable option, even before they announced it publicly - no matter if they ever did it or not. The next step 'into the wrong direction' for me was them defending the decision over and over, in written and spoken form and giving me a totally untrustworthy impression in their understanding of privacy (especially in the spoken Twitter group chat thing), see below.

Quote from: n0nce on June 24, 2022, 05:20:48 PM

11. We're talking about political refugees, government critics and investigative journalists for example; these are amongst the ones needing privacy the most (and therefore switching to Bitcoin in the first place). But in https://twitter.com/HillebrandMax/status/1537503087987937283, at 1:32:10, Aviv Milner says that 'the average person who's using the product especially if you're not in a situation where you're your life depends on it and there's a large government organization that's well funded that's looking to to find you and hunt you down if you're not in that extreme situation then wasabi provides an incredible amount of privacy'. So it means WasabiWallet is not the 'ultimate privacy solution' for Bitcoin after all; just maybe for 'getting a little privacy' or how should we call that? Someone who really, really needs actual privacy cannot rely on Wasabi then? What should they use in your opinion? On one hand, you say Wasabi is the only / best option for privacy, but then admit it doesn't provide enough privacy if someone's life depends on it; so what's the point of it all then? We don't believe privacy is something quantifiable; it's more a yes-or-no kind of deal. Either your UTXOs and transactions are private or they're not.

The last step 'into the wrong direction' for me, was how they advertised the 'first Wasabi 2.0 CoinJoin not using the blacklist' as a 'promotional feature'. Besides the fact that privacy is a serious thing for me and shouldn't be used as a marketing gimmick that is turned on or off based on their mood or the daily occasion, I don't get how it's so risky for them to not have a blacklist when it comes to business partners and whatnot, but at the same time they can opt not to use it for such an event. Doesn't really check out for me.

Quote from: n0nce on June 18, 2022, 12:52:11 AM

Quote from: https://twitter.com/TheVladCostea/status/1537427020396695554

Wanna become part of the first ever Wasabi 2.0 main net CoinJoin?

There’s no UTXO filtering, the minimum amount to join is 0.00005 BTC, small amounts don’t pay a coordination fee.

Imagine 'there is no UTXO filtering' is used like some sort of 'goodie' or 'specialty' *just today!*-type deal.. Of a privacy wallet. Sir, I can send any UTXO to anyone, on any day of the week (not just when Wasabi is holding a 'special event'), by just using a different wallet. You're living in a different universe.

Quote from: NotATether on Today at 05:14:15 AM

Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on July 19, 2022, 07:28:23 PM

Well, they've had loads of time to do it, and apparently no pressure to implement blacklisting. So why not launch an alternative coordinator first, change it the default, and then announce blacklisting on zkSNACKs? Makes no sense.

No pressure is the key - they might not implement blacklisting on the default coordinater for years, or may even drop that initiative entirely if they suspect that its not worth the effort.

Then why would they announce it and double-down on it so many times? I'm just a bit puzzled right now if they really end up not implementing it.